However to elaborate on my previous comment, it is physically impossible for the clubhouse time stamps to be 18 minutes off. If they were, that would mean W3 sees Timothy Smith before he even enters RATL. We determined the videos are 16:32 off, not that much difference from 18:00 if you look at it casually, but quite significant when you try to correlate the video footage with the 311 and 911 calls.

How do know that the timestamp did not lose/gain 1, 2 3, or nth seconds during the 45 minute duration?

For example, I think initially we all believed GZ called 311 after parking his car somewhere, but the timing evidence indicates he called while driving away from the mailbox area down TTL. It seems counter-intuitive, but there it is.

I note, with appreciation DiwataMan's careful and limited wording here. I contend we can definitively say that GZ did not park in front of the clubhouse where and when he said he did in the 're-enactment.' He has Randy Smith pull in to the parking area right in front of the window seen in a direct view from the gameroom camera.

Furthermore, by any calculation, Zimmerman's truck was on TTL, not in front of the clubhouse, when he called 311.

However to elaborate on my previous comment, it is physically impossible for the clubhouse time stamps to be 18 minutes off. If they were, that would mean W3 sees Timothy Smith before he even enters RATL. We determined the videos are 16:32 off, not that much difference from 18:00 if you look at it casually, but quite significant when you try to correlate the video footage with the 311 and 911 calls.

So if Zimmerman ever did park in front of the clubhouse, it wasn't in the spot he told Smith he had been in, and he didn't call 311 from there either.

I have to ask, you have stated now at least twice as absolute "Timothy Smith" car... what identifies Timothy Smith's patrol car? have you identified all other subsequent arriving vehicles similarly?

Well one thing I have to give whonoze is at least he's willing to discuss what he believes and why he believes it with the "opposition" so to speak.

I'll reiterate these points again though. As interesting as the clubhouse videos may be to some, in the end I find them virtually useless and uninteresting. I'm willing to discuss them and even present what I believe I see in them but again, at the end of the day there is just too much uncertainty involved. It's a simple test of basic epistemology.

Look, just take any part of the video that anyone says is George's truck, or any vehicle for that matter, and show it to someone, preferably someone who knows nothing about the case. Ask them to identify the make and model of the car. They won't be able to do it. That's really the end of the discussion right there. Now we may all agree, with the knowledge of the case, that one vehicle may more than likely be George's truck but again at the end of the day we can not say definitively that it is. And that's just the first and foremost problem. Once you get into the particulars of movement and such it becomes worse.

Then we have the basic standard of burden of proof and the scientific method. It's the burden of the person who makes the claim to prove that claim. It's fine to speculate, hypothesize and so on regarding what we see in the videos but again at the end of the day it will always remain in the realm of hypothesis and never move beyond that. Though I will say one could do some further observation by going there and doing some tests but I seriously doubt anyone is going to do that and none of us have access to preform tests so the point stands.

As much fun as we can have with that and arguing differing aspects, in the end that's all it will be, fun.

I'm not convinced that the 18 minute error is accurate, but I'm even more skeptical of an analysis that disregards it and fits the video's timing to whatever seems to work out best, based on fuzzy flashes of light. If the video's timing were accurately known, I think some valuable information could be deduced; but without knowing the actual timing, there are too many variables and too little information.

I wonder if comparing the rain patterns between the different videos and the bank video might help nail down the timeline, or at least help confirm or refute the 18 minute timing error.

How do know that the timestamp did not lose/gain 1, 2 3, or nth seconds during the 45 minute duration?

All video systems in the US are locked into a 60 cycle clock. They record at 59.94 fields per second, which works out to 29.97 full frames per second. In order to match time code to actual running time a system called "drop frame" time code is used. This doesn't actually remove frames from the video, but rather skips a frame number every few minutes. So the counter will go from say 9:59:29 to 10:00:02. I do not know what kind of timing system was used in the raw videos DiwataMan obtained from the discovery site. Since the videos only advance one frame per second, the counter may only record seconds, not frames.

@DiwataMan, when you examined the raw videos did you see any evidence of timing slippage, or did the advance of the counter correspond to the duration of the running time?

I'm not convinced that the 18 minute error is accurate, but I'm even more skeptical of an analysis that disregards it and fits the video's timing to whatever seems to work out best

It's not "whatever seems to work out best" but what is physically possible. If the security footage timing is 18 minutes off, that puts the first squad car inside RATL BEFORE the shot was fired.

The only possibility is that the security cam timestamps are off by even LESS than the 16:32 we deduced. W3 simply could not have seen the squad car any earlier than we placed it. Had she not seen it until it got closer to her home, that would reduce the error, not lengthen it. So we stayed as close to the 18 minute mark as is possible, given the limits imposed by W3's call.

All video systems in the US are locked into a 60 cycle clock. They record at 59.94 fields per second, which works out to 29.97 full frames per second. In order to match time code to actual running time a system called "drop frame" time code is used. This doesn't actually remove frames from the video, but rather skips a frame number every few minutes. So the counter will go from say 9:59:29 to 10:00:02. I do not know what kind of timing system was used in the raw videos DiwataMan obtained from the discovery site. Since the videos only advance one frame per second, the counter may only record seconds, not frames.

@DiwataMan, when you examined the raw videos did you see any evidence of timing slippage, or did the advance of the counter correspond to the duration of the running time?

I'm not even sure if bothering with all that helps. You can see each frame shift. You could count every frame and see if they are the same from minute to minute, should only take about forever, . But as far as raw video goes I'm not sure what you mean. There are two types on the state's website; the video with the software and the avi files. Frankly I'm surprised no one from your side has bothered to gain access to the State's discovery site. You can get the video with the timestamp from there.

I understand the 60 cycles per minute shutter speed. Within each second, is it known what the firing order of the different cameras is? Or do they simultaneously take pictures withing say .001 second of each other?

Then we have the basic standard of burden of proof and the scientific method. It's the burden of the person who makes the claim to prove that claim. It's fine to speculate, hypothesize and so on regarding what we see in the videos but again at the end of the day it will always remain in the realm of hypothesis and never move beyond that. Though I will say one could do some further observation by going there and doing some tests but I seriously doubt anyone is going to do that and none of us have access to preform tests so the point stands.

To be accepted in a Florida court, such an analysis would need to pass a Frye hearing. That usually means the methodology needs to be based on peer-reviewed research. That's not a formal requirement, but I think it's how courts have usually interpreted and applied the Frye standard.

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting experimental testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

This is what will exclude those 'voice experts' who were lionized by media outlets that almost completely ignored the admissibility question.

Within each second, is it known what the firing order of the different cameras is? Or do they simultaneously take pictures withing say .001 second of each other?

I have no knowledge of the specifics of security camera recordings. I would guess, for efficiency's sake, all the cameras at the clubhouse are recorded onto a single device, and some kind of device can extract the individual views and duplicate the frames to put the output into proper clock time. If that is indeed the case, one might guess the cameras fire sequentially rather than simultaneously. However, since they're synced to the same clock, they might fire simultaneously with the images going into a frame buffer so they're just recorded sequentially. A video frame is captured one pixel at a time starting at the top and moving toward the bottom. So the pixel at the bottom is captured 1/29th of a second after the one at the top anyway.

Based on the bloom of the lights, I would guess the shutter speed is 1/30 second, but it could be 1/15th.

None of these differences really make a difference. I don't know why you're hung up about them.

This is what will exclude those 'voice experts' who were lionized by media outlets that almost completely ignored the admissibility question.

But that's how those guys make their living, as 'expert witnesses,' so courts have accepted their testimony on a fairly regular basis. In the case of Ed Primeau, whose method is 'critical listening' that means the courts have pretty low standards. (I find Primeau to be an utter bozo.) Tom Owen at least has an approach that could be put to the rigors of the scientific method, not that he came anywhere near that in his quickie workup on the 911 screams for the newspaper.

I doubt a study by Owen (or similar) would be ruled inadmissable, but i also highly doubt the prosecution will attempt to introduce any voice analysis. Unless they're hiding a surprise audiologist somewhere, they only put the two guys from the newspaper story in the witness list, which means they didn't do their own research into experts on the topic, which means they don't plan to go there at trial.